BANK DIVIDENDS

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 42, 19 February 1931, Page 10

BANK DIVIDENDS

(To the Editor.) Sir,—The controversy on the matter of Bank of New South Wales dividends is very interesting, and the New Zealand shiu-eholders' grievance at receiving only 7s 5d dividend (9s less about Is 7d exchange) as compared with the Australian's 9s, is, on the face of it, a quite understandable and apparently legitimate grievance. , The average shareholder is concerned mainly with the anuunt he receives on his investment, and consequently when he sees the bank operating here on capital supplied, by New Zealanders and some six millions of New Zealand deposits he wonders why the bank cannot pay out the dividends here in full. The profound statement made by the bank, on the authority of five learned counsel, that "no one shareholder can receive from the bank per unit of his holding more than another," sounds very well, but it seems to be negatived by the bank in paying the New Zealander less than the Australian. Surely if they cannot pay one shareholder more than another they cannot pay one less than another, which in effect they are doing. I understand they are giving dividend warrants for the 9s, less exchange, thus not even giving the recipient the option of negotiating these in Australia, say, by reinvesting , there. Not only this, but they are, by_ deducting the exchange, not even allowing other banks* to share in the transaction, as would be the case were the warrants banked- in another bank for collection. Surely at a time like this the bank wants to retain the goodwill and confidence of the community. Its New Zealand business appears to be about a tenth of the total business, but still in these times it must be profitable, sound, and worth considering.—l am, etc., , ' DIVIDEND. ISth February.